Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice - In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:

Climatologists
are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to
compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They
concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling
food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into
economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners
delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic
change once the results become grim reality.

Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.

Why were scientists considering melting the arctic ice cap?

Because they were worried about a new ice age.

Newsweek discussed the 1975 article in 2006:

In
April, 1975 ... NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a
very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's
weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine
warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political
disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every
nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency
action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been
following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that
the threat was: global cooling...

Citizens can judge for
themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what
occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it's probably just as well that
society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned
in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help
it melt.

Newsweek was not alone. Some scientists and the press have been warning about an ice age off and on for over 100 years.

For example, on February 24, 1895, the New York Times published an article
entitled "PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the
World May Be Frozen Up Again", which starts with the following
paragraph:

The question is again being discussed
whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the
advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in
the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the
perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.

In September 1958, Harper's wrote an article called "The Coming Ice Age".

On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article entitled "Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future" which stated:

Get
a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be
yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given
out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world
weather trends.

In 1972, two scientists - George
J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K.
Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) -
wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:

Dear Mr. President:

Aware
of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to
inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here
recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of
climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators.
We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.

The
main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of
climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by
civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due
very soon.

The cooling has natural
cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last
ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of
deep sea sediments.

Existing data still do not allow forecast of
the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of
the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be
excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern
Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the
cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a
century, if continuing at the present pace.

The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:

(1)
Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing
seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts
of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.

(2)
Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as
those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.

With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research …

With best regards,

George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)

R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)

The
White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the
letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science
Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity looking into the threat of an ice age.

On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:

Changes
in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on
key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that
recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and
to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have
decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.

Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.

As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:

There
were also a number of short-term climate events of national and
international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain
level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El
Niño of 1972-1973.

A killing winter freeze followed by a
severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in
Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the
losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive
up food prices.

Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late
1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean
currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of
fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein
feedstocks.

The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S.
Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir
storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric
energy requirements for the region.

On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" which stated:

As
they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past
several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect
that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are
actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather
varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take
an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the
atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three
decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather
aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere ...

Whatever
the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious,
if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the
amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic
balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to
another ice age within only a few hundred years.

(here's the printer-friendly version).

Science News wrote an article in 1975 called "Chilling Possibilities" warning of a new ice age.

A January 1975 article from the New York Times warned:

The
most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the
National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present
interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's
climate for the past 10,000 years.

A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:

Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.

A 1994 Time article entitled "The Ice Age Cometh?" stated:

What
ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic
warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and
factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the
temperature dangerously over the next 75 years or so. But if last week
is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to
start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced
warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established
part of the planet's history. The last one ended about 10,000 years
ago; the next one -- for there will be a next one -- could start tens
of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have
already started.

Note 1: One
of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must
make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems
themselves. For example, the Washington Post noted
that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to
another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole.
However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government
demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' "   Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them.  Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.

And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

Suppose
it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way
understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to
set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well,
given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably
have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that
would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd
even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right
now." (page 388).

Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?

Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.

Note
2: Given that scientists considered pouring soot on the North Pole to
melt the ice in the 1970's, it should come as no surprise that soot may
be having a dramatic effect on the ice sheets and glaciers now.

Note 3: Some global warming advocates warn that a warming-induced shut down of the huge ocean current known as the thermohaline circulation could cause a new ice age in certain limited parts of the world that are warmed by the by the North Atlantic current, such as Iceland, Ireland, the Nordic countries, and Britain. But scientists in the 1970s were talking about something different: the start of a worldwide ice age due, for example, to a 100,000 year cycle in solar radiation hitting the Earth.

Note
4: I studied global warming at a top university in the early 1980's. I
was taught - as Al Gore was taught in college - that temperatures are
directly correlated with CO2 levels.

Note
5: I not only do not receive a penny from oil or any other energy,
industry or political person or organization of any nature whatsoever
(I make a few peanuts from ads on this site, which I do not choose, but
are selected without my input by my ad service), I am also wholly and
completely against big oil, big coal and big nuclear. As I have
repeatedly argued, power should be taken away from the oil giants and
decentralized. I have repeatedly argued for microgeneration and for
alternative energy. These things are beneficial for a number of reasons
- including better health, less corruption of our political systems
through decentralization of power, and a boost to our economy - in
addition to whatever climate benefits they may have.

Note 6: For further information on the swing between warnings of ice ages and runaway global warming, see this and this.
I have verified all of the facts made in the main post above, but I
have not yet verified all of the claims made in the last two
aforementioned web pages.

Comments

[Anonymous]

I suggest you take a look at this:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

[Anonymous]

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release 14th of dec. 2009
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au

British admit: Copenhagen intends genocide‚ World Government

The official British two-pronged policy for the Copenhagen Conference is now out‚ in explicit language. It consists of: 1) massive population genocide‚ on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush‚ and 2) the establishment of a world government with policing powers to cap carbon emissions‚ to tax every advanced sector nation to the extent of two per cent of GDP per year‚ and to impose a global levy on all global financial transactions‚ among other draconian provisions.

Regarding the genocide‚ the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics‚ the anchor of the Fabian Gordon Brown government (the chief organiser of the Copenhagen Conference)‚ has produced a study for Copenhagen‚ released by the British government-backed Optimum Population Trust (OPT)‚ calling for the reduction of world population by between three to five billion people between now and 2050. This flagrant call for mass extermination is based on the argument that the single greatest cause of (non-existent) global warming is overpopulation‚ and that the most “cost-effective” cure for global warming is radical population reduction. This is not just the “opinion” of one way-out nutty group: The Copenhagen conference is itself being sponsored by the U.N.‚ and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) tapped the OPT’s director‚ Roger Martin‚ to present the UNFPA’s own State of World Population 2009 report on the 16th November‚ in the lead-up to Copenhagen.

Former Thatcher government adviser Lord Christopher Monckton blew the whistle on the proposed World Government on the Alex Jones radio show on 9th December. Monckton‚ who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit‚ said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the 180-page current draft of the negotiating text agreement‚ he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming. “I insisted‚ and it took about 10 minutes and they consulted each other with three or four of them arguing over it—none of them would produce the document … I said I know this treaty exists because this is what the conference is all about‚” said Monckton.

Monckton went on to elaborate precisely how the 180-page treaty draft would establish a world government‚ replete with around 700 separate bureaucracies‚ and powers of taxation‚ inspection and enforcement over individual nation-states. Developed nations‚ for instance‚ will be taxed to pay the World Bank to fund developing nations‚ but such funds will only be forthcoming for those developing nations if they meet stringent criteria. The treaty also outlines‚ said Monckton‚ “penalties or fines for non-compliance”‚ in developed countries‚ and the creation of an international police force to “enforce its will by imposing unlimited financial penalties on any countries whose performance under this treaty they don’t like”‚ adding that that it amounted to a total global government takeover on an “unimaginable scale”.

Briefed on Monckton’s findings‚ American statesman and physical economist Lyndon LaRouche charged‚ “What this 180-page document represents is a policy worse than Hitler‚ which is the policy behind the Copenhagen summit. And the people who are proposing this‚ therefore‚ are subject to trial for genocide. Anybody who proposes this‚ becomes subject to a subsequent trial for genocide‚ by a future Nuremberg proceeding. Beware! Do not propose this; you may be subject to a future Nuremberg proceeding!”

LaRouche further called on China and India‚ who are coming under excruciating pressure to capitulate‚ to stick to their positions going into Copenhagen and to walk out if faced with mandatory emissions restrictions: “Stick to what they agreed to; stick to it! Don’t worry about the differences; stick to it! Screw this thing up! Destroy it now‚ and get rid of it!

“The issue here is that some governments are in a sense ducking the issue‚ pretending to accept conditions which they intend to defy in fact. But the point is‚ then they will become targets for destruction on that basis. It’s better to defy than to try to evade. Defiance promotes unity; compromise promotes destruction.”